Discover more from All Facts Matter
Faucism And The Sound Of Silence
Menstrual Disruption Is But The Latest Example Of Questions Not Asked During The Development Of COVID Inoculations
We learned from the story of immunologist Michel Goldman that the development of the mRNA inoculations against the SARS-CoV-2 virus ignored the potential risks for developing T-cell lymphomas.
Despite medical research already having established the risks of T-cell hyperstimulation, the mRNA inoculations were designed specifically to target T-cells in order to give the greatest immunological “oomph”—and because of that design choice people such as Michel Goldman were given T-cell lymphoma, a particularly aggressive cancer of the lymphatic system.
Yet that is not the only example of a damning Faucist silence surrounding the mRNA inoculations. After a year of complaints from women that the mRNA inoculations were disrupting their monthly cycles comes a large international study that confirms what women have known all along: the mRNA shots mess with their menstrual cycles.
COVID-19 vaccination does lead to an average increase in menstrual cycle length, according to a new large international study.
The study funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that women experienced a longer menstrual cycle length after getting vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.
The study builds on research the lead author, Alison Edeleman, published earlier in the summer which documented cycle disruption among more than half of the women receiving COVID inoculations.
While the overall disruption to menstruation appears to be temporary, there is one awkward unavoidable truth that must be acknowledged here: the inoculations have been available for over a year and a half and doctors are only just now admitting this issue.
What The Study Shows
The study itself1, which was published this past week in BMJ Medicine, is a retrospective cohort study which utilized data from a menstrual cycle tracking application, Natural Cycles. Unfortunately, as the data is licensed from Natural Cycles, it is not available to third parties.
For most women whose data were included in the study, receiving a dose of one of the mRNA inoculations appears to lengthen their cycle by slightly less than a day.
Individuals who were vaccinated had a less than one day adjusted increase in the length of their first and second vaccine cycles, compared with individuals who were not vaccinated (0.71 day increase (99.3% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.96) for first dose; 0.56 day increase (0.28 to 0.84) for second dose).
However, the cycle disruption intensified significantly if two doses were administered within a single cycle. Then the cycle length increased by nearly four days.
The adjusted difference was larger in people who received two doses in a cycle (3.70 days increase (2.98 to 4.42)).
The data also indicates that, at least for those receiving only one dose per cycle, the effects are largely temporary.
One cycle after vaccination, cycle length was similar to before the vaccine in individuals who received one dose per cycle (0.02 day change (99.3% confidence interval −0.10 to 0.14), but not yet for individuals who received two doses per cycle (0.85 day change (99.3% confidence interval 0.24 to 1.46)) compared with unvaccinated individuals.
Notably, these effects are not limited to the mRNA inoculations, but were also observed among recipients of adenovirus vector shots as well as a more traditional inactivated virus preparation.
While this effect seems to be a temporary one, even the study’s authors, in their best anodyne antiseptic language, were forced to acknowledge that wreaking havoc on a woman’s cycle is a pretty big deal.
Even small changes, when unanticipated, can have a large adverse impact on the quality of life of people who menstruate and who experience episodes of social embarrassment, anxiety related to uncontained bleeding or fertility planning or prevention, and worry about what bleeding changes mean for their overall health.
Even so, the authors acknowledge that this study is relatively narrow in scope, and the establishment of a clear link between inoculation and cycle disruption is also call for further research into how else the COVID shots might be impacting menstruation.
Our findings from this large international cohort of individuals continue to be reassuring and can be used to counsel individuals about what to expect with a covid-19 vaccination and how to make an informed decision about vaccination versus continuing to be at risk for covid-19 disease and its related morbidity and mortality. Although we do find menstrual changes after covid-19 vaccination, these changes are small compared with normal variation and resolve in the cycle after vaccination, except in people who received both doses in one menstrual cycle. Future work should assess other aspects of changes to menstrual cycles, such as unexpected vaginal bleeding, menstrual flow and pain, and define the mechanism by which the postvaccination menstrual changes described here occur.
In simpler terms: these shots are doing things to the human body doctors do not fully understand, and further research is required before doctors can understand.
Confirmation Of An Earlier US Study
As noted above, this latest study comes on the heels of similar research2 also performed by Alison Edelman, using data from the same menstrual tracking application, but focused narrowly on US women. This earlier study, published in the April edition of Obsetrics and Gynecology, found largely the same results.
Overall, COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for both vaccine-dose cycles compared with prevaccine cycles (first dose 0.71 day-increase, 98.75% CI 0.47–0.94; second dose 0.91, 98.75% CI 0.63–1.19); unvaccinated individuals saw no significant change compared with three baseline cycles (cycle four 0.07, 98.75% CI −0.22 to 0.35; cycle five 0.12, 98.75% CI −0.15 to 0.39).
In this earlier study, Edelman also acknowledges the relevance of the menstrual cycle in a woman’s overall health and fertility.
Menstrual cyclicity is an overt sign of health and fertility. Menstrual characteristics are not static, and variability exists month to month across an individual's lifespan. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics classifies a variation in cycle length as normal if less than 8 days. Regularly menstruating individuals can also experience sporadic or stress-induced ovulation perturbances, which may result in a skipped cycle or a temporary change in cycle length. This normal variability may be perceived as concerning, especially in conjunction with a new exposure such as COVID-19 vaccination.
Note the pandering condescension even in this earlier study: cycles vary anyway, so that the shots disrupt a woman’s cycle is only a “perceived” problem, not an actual problem.
Edelman also found the same amplified disruption when two shots of a COVID inoculation were received within the same cycle, although in her presentation of the data she took pains to bury this data point.
The increase in cycle length for both the first and second vaccine cycles appears to be driven largely by the 358 individuals who received both vaccine doses within a single cycle (cycle four). This subgroup experienced a 2-day unadjusted mean cycle length increase (Table 3, 2.38 days, 98.75% CI 1.52–3.24), and 10.6% had an increase in cycle length of 8 days or more compared with 4.3% in the unvaccinated cohort (P<.001).
Note that more than twice as many women in the inoculated cohort as in the uninoculated had cycle disruptions of 8 days or more. Apparently, getting two shots within the same menstrual cycle can be quite disrupted to a woman’s normal bodily rhythms.
Despite this, the authors conclude that the changes are insignificant.
Our findings are reassuring; we find no population-level clinically meaningful change in menstrual cycle length associated with COVID19 vaccination. Our findings support and help explain the self-reports of changes in cycle length. Individuals receiving two COVID-19 vaccine doses in a single cycle do appear to experience a longer but temporary cycle length change.
Big Deal Or Not A Big Deal?
While the medical significance of cycle disruption is a question women must address with their gynecologist, the reality of this data is that it comes way late to the party. From the first introduction of the COVID inoculations women have noted the impacts the shots were having on their bodies, yet it took over a year after that for this even these small bits of research to be done.
It’s about bloody time health experts listened to women
Could the Covid-19 vaccine have a short-term impact on your menstrual cycle? Thousands of women think so: ever since the vaccines became widely available, people who menstruate have been sharing stories about weird changes to their cycle following their shots. More than 30,000 reports of post-vaccine menstrual irregularity have been made to the UK’s medical regulator alone. In the US, researchers Kate Clancy and Katharine Lee have collected more than 140,000 reports from people who have noticed a change in their period post-vaccination.
Given Alison Edelman’s research, it is difficult to contest Ms Mahdawi’s contention that the healthcare establishment is flatly ignoring the impact of these inoculations on womens’ overall health.
Interestingly, at least at the time of this op-ed piece last year, Ms. Mahdawi was something of an apologist for the inoculations, even as she was highlighting the reality that these questions were simply not asked, these issues simply not studied, during the inital clinical trials for the shots.
There is no reason to be worried by a possible link between the Covid-19 vaccine and an abnormal period. What is worrying, however, is the abysmal way in which the issue has been handled. First, there’s the fact that participants in clinical coronavirus vaccine trials weren’t asked specific questions about changes to their menstrual cycle. Why did no one think that might be something worth collecting data on? Dr Kathryn Edwards, a professor who sits on an independent data monitoring committee for the Pfizer vaccine, told NPR earlier this year that the accelerated speed of development of the vaccines meant that everyone’s energy was focused on spotting dangerous side effects. “I want people to understand that we’re not blowing them off,” Edwards told NPR, “but we have some priorities that we have to have.”
Note the curious circular logic attributed to Kathryn Edwards regarding the accelerated pace of development for the inoculations: because the shots had to be ready sooner rather than later (because reasons), there simply was not time to look for anything but “dangerous” side effects—and since side effects like cycle disruption were therefore not studied to determine if there was an associated health risk, the capacity for triggering cycle disruption is therefore “not dangerous”.
Faucism at its finest.
The extent to which menstrual cycle disruptions constitute a serious health risk to women is a question best left to women. However, what constitutes a serious health risk to everyone, man or woman, is a fundamental incuriousness on the part of the inoculation developers. As with the case of T-cell hyperstimulation, the capacity of any immunization preparation to disrupt a woman’s cycle was known well before the shots were even concieved. That this was a potential adverse effect was known before the SAR-CoV-2 virus emerged from a Wuhan biolab to spread around the world.
The risks were known then and ignored. The risks are still being ignored—we have seen no data on the latest “bivalent booster” shots being urged upon the public this fall to suggest any of these issues have been scrutinized during their development.
The development protocol for these COVID inoculations from the start has been “are there antibodies? Great!” We know this because the researchers themselves, by admitting these links exist and that more research is needed to understand their implications, are also admitting that these questions were not examined during the clinical trial phase.
Doctors assure everyone the COVID inoculatons are “safe”. How can they know, given that safety was, by their own admission, never actually a concern during development?
The Faucists are worried that discussion of these “harmless” side effects may contribute to “vaccine hesitancy”. They should be worried, because that is exactly what should be happening. People should be more reluctant to get jabbed upon learning that no serious scrutiny was given to the safety of the inoculations during their development. With each new study, with each new adverse effect confirmed, that reality is made ever more apparent.
What the Faucists call “vaccine hesitancy” those of us who live in the real world call “common sense.”
All Facts Matter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Alternatively, please consider leaving a tip through Ko-Fi. Thank you always for your support!
Edelman A, Boniface ER, Male V, et al “Association between menstrual cycle length and covid-19 vaccination: global, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data” BMJ Medicine 2022;1:e000297. doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000297
Edelman, Alison MD, MPH; Boniface, Emily R. MPH; Benhar, Eleonora PhD; Han, Leo MD, MPH; Matteson, Kristen A. MD, MPH; Favaro, Carlotta PhD; Pearson, Jack T. PhD; Darney, Blair G. PhD, MPH. Association Between Menstrual Cycle Length and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination: A U.S. Cohort. Obstetrics & Gynecology: April 2022 - Volume 139 - Issue 4 - p 481-489 doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004695